As you might have heard in a certain musical, The Federalist Papers represented a series of essays published in New York newspapers in 1788 by “Publius” as an attempt to defend the structure and substance of the Constitution proposed for the creation of the government of the United States as we now know it. “Publius” was a consortium of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison; Jay only wrote two or three, Madison a few, especially about the legislature, and most of it comes from Hamilton.

The Federalist Papers has become part of the American hagiography, seen by far too many as the Wisdom from the Founders from On High, as if their understanding should thus inform how we interpret the Constitution to this day.

In reading The Federalist Papers two striking themes kept re-appearing and came to mind.

The first involves some of the effective basis of that hagiography: in many respects we today take for granted a lot of the ways in which the government of the United States is organized and run which were laid out in the Constitution and defended in The Federalist Papers, and we do not imagine how it could be otherwise. But many of these principles needed defending. There were alternate ways of imagining how the United States might organize itself, and many of those views were enshrined in the Articles of Confederarion and were being strongly supported by other factions. It would have been disastrous if the military functions or the ability to make treaties had devolved onto the states individually or in regional blocs. We don’t think twice about how we have become fifty states, but do we think how much power the original thirteen was willing to give up in order for that to become a reality?

The second theme, however, involves a recognition of the thin gruel which represented the bases on which the authors were setting forth their propositions. I have never heard more references to various Greek leagues of city-states than I have in The Federalist Papers, and I was a Classics major. It is a reminder of just how radical the idea of democratic-republican governance with a separation of powers within the federal government and between the federal and state governments really was. Sometimes appeals were made to British common law, but most appeals, if there were any basis in historical experience, would involve those Greek city-state leagues, the Roman Republic, or previous experience under the Articles of Confederation or the kinds of governments already in place in the various states.

Hamilton’s final points about the imperfections of the Constitution and the striving to form a more perfect union remain as apt as ever: the Constitution, and The Federalist Papers which defend it, are important historical documents. They well navigated and negotiated a lot of difficulties. The United States also enjoyed a lot of benefits, some natural, some policy related, and some by chance or good fortune. Yet even its authors recognized the importance of allowing the government to adapt based upon learned experience and socio-cultural changes. The Bill of Rights was good. The later amendments enshrining civil rights and the end of chattel slavery as previously practiced were good. Suffrage for women and non-propertied persons was good.

No doubt many of the changes which have been wrought in the past two hundred plus years would horrify Hamilton, Madison, et al, for even though they did not want to build a European-style aristocracy, they still maintained a lot of aristocratic airs. But I do have to wonder how they would feel in looking at the contrast between the changes and developments in Europe versus the stagnation in governance now prevalent in the United States of America. Yet it seems fairly certain none of them would have been interested in the level of hagiography which currently exists in relation to the forms of government they encouraged. They were the Founders, not the Finishers, of our system of governance.

(Technical concerns about the particular edition of The Federalist Papers linked above: a lot of OCR scanning errors; year numbers left as unknown characters; and especially in the Madison section, too many spacing issues. It’s $1 for a reason. A cleaner version would enhance reading.) ( )

Did I really read this book? I don't recall enough to discuss it. ( )

Worth reading as a historical document. The essays light on some constitutional articles that seemed more important to the founders than they turned out to be: neither the clause guaranteeing republican government to the states, nor the clause giving Congress the ultimate power to regulate federal elections, have been deployed as rigorously as they might have been in protection of voting rights or against gerrymandering. While the authors had ancient and early modern history to draw on, as well as the writings of Montesquieu, they naturally failed to foresee many dangers to the Republic, in particular those from the current excesses of party attachment, campaign spending, and power of mass propaganda. It's also worth noting that the proposed Constitution was strictly unconstitutional under the Articles of Confederation, which required Congressional and unanimous state assent to amend it, rather than the assent of 9 out of 13 states that the Constitution itself states were required for its ratification.

FROM AMAZON: Hailed by Thomas Jefferson as "the best commentary on the principles of government which was ever written," The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 essays published by Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay from 1787 to 1788, as a means to persuade the public to ratify the Constitution of the United States.

With nearly two-thirds of the essays written by Hamilton, this enduring classic is perfect for modern audiences passionate about his work or seeking a deeper understanding of one of the most important documents in US history. ( )

2/15/23